Menu

albumin

So #MedTwitter is truly an incredible forum for case discussion, where you get to exchange with literally some of the best medical minds on the planet who often also happen to be front-line clinicians in the nitty-gritty therapeutic decision-making. Here’s a discussion which I think was great. Recently, Dr. Thind has been generating some great cases and hemodynamic discussions. I thought this one was worth highlighting!

Dr Thind is an internist and currently Critical Care Hospitalist (and upcoming ICU fellow) at the Cleveland Clinic, and tweets out some great #FOAM from @Thind888 on twitter.

Case:

OK, let’s give this a shot. Here’s a ‘hemodynamics special’. Saw this case a couple weeks ago. A lot of decision making was based on educated guesses so it should be a good one for discussion. – 51 yo woman being worked up on the floor for chronic diarrhea, moved to ICU for hypoxia.

Dyspnea progressed over few hours. Vitals significant for tachycardia (140s) and hypotension (MAP in low 60s). On arrival, SBP 60s – improved with fluid bolus. CXR attached. Patient has H/O of pericardial effusion for several months that has been managed conservatively.

The patient has an official ECHO performed on arrival in ICU (images attached). IVC difficult to assess but about 2cm without collapse. Lung US – diffuse B lines.

OK so right there a flag goes up for me. A plethoric IVC means something is wrong. Sounds too vague maybe, but you need to find the reason for this, as it likely has therapeutic implications. Let’s see what comes up.

Modifed A5C.

LVOT doppler

CXR

Pressing questions –

(i) Is it hydrostatic or increased permeability pulmonary edema?

(ii) Fluids, diuresis, or none?

(iii) Would CPAP help?

(iv) Drain the pericardial effusion?

(v) What about that LVOT doppler?

Mitral inflow velocities and TDI attached. M-mode through PLAX almost uninterpretable. Lung infiltrates are new so less likely lymphangitic carninomatosis. Note: ScVo2 = 40s. Another Q to ponder on –

Perhaps this slowed up (0.5x) A3C loop will help with that LVOT doppler!

Great discussion as expected. Lets discuss:

Q4. Is it tamponade? – This is not a slam dunk. Chamber collapse can sometimes be controversial. In these situations I try my best to get MV E-wave variation. I think our tech got a decent signal. But note these are fused E/A waves.

The first thing I look at to screen for tamponade is the IVC. Tamponade is an obstructive form of shock, dependant on the intrapericardial pressure exceeding the right atrial pressure. If it does, unless respiratory efforts are extreme, the IVC should become plethoric. Hence, the absence of such would make the effusion – given the current RA pressure – NOT tamponade. Yet again, another point scored by the IVC for usefulness.

Although I don’t see why we can’t use fused waves for this purpose (couldn’t find anything on it in the literature). Note that in spite of the cardiac motion, the mitral inflow variation is <25% (~23%). It’s close though, and certainly seems to have increased from 3 days ago.

The cardiologist (understandably) was non-committal and read it as “possible early tamponade”.

Q5. What about LVOT doppler? A good M-mode could not be obtained but the A3C in 6/ shows SAM. The report mentioned “chordal SAM” but I think you can clearly see “valvular SAM” too.

Chordal SAM is SAM of the chordal apparatus (you could see it bumping against the septum in 6/). It is (typically) NOT hemodynamically significant (PMID: 27241937). – When we see mitral SAM, it is important to quantify its hemodynamic effects – with LVOT peak gradient via CW.

In HOCM, DLVOTO is defined by an LVOT gradient of >30; >50 is considered severe. Our patient had a gradient of ~70. Although classically a/w HCM, SAM can be seen in anyone with thick, hypercontractile, underfilled LV. Tachycardia further hampers LV filling (PMID: 27726435).

Mitral SAM is often a/w MR – this acute MR can cause flash pulmonary edema. These patients may actually need fluids (to help with SAM) to fix there hydrostatic pulmonary edema!! (PMID: 20661209). However, our patient only had trace MR (you could see it in 1-2 CD frames).

This also explains the low ScVO2. Note – CPAP would further reduce venous return (Q3) so wouldn’t help, may hurt.

Now the most important Qs: why pulmonary edema and what to do about it (Q1 and 2). As tamponade causes impedance to venous return, it is not typically associated with high LAP and hydrostatic pulmonary edema (Q6).

But first, let’s check out another CW tracing. Any thoughts?

This is a CW beam through LV apex and mitral valve – typically performed to assess mitral inflow and MR velocities and is part of the standard ECHO exam. However, the tracing is not typical for MR (late peaking, dagger shape). Remember, CW does not have depth resolution.

Finally – what does the ECHO tell us about LV filling pressures? – E/A ratio: As Lars pointed out, an E/A < 0.8 usually means normal LAP. However, the exception to this is sinus tach. This was shown in a study by none other than Dr. Nagueh (PMID: 9778330). (Also, see image)

The idea is that when early filling (E) is incomplete due to short diastolic time, the LA remains “full” at the time of the atrial kick – causing higher A velocities. NB: In that paper, E/E’ > 10 had a specificity of 95% for elevated LAP in ST. In our case: E/E’ = 75/5 = 15!

So at this point, it’s still contentious but I have my money on hydrostatic pulmonary edema. Will detail our interventions and the remaining course in a bit. …Sorry to make this long but I think it’s worth it!

Now for the home stretch, the remaining course: We realized pericardiocentesis may be required soon but wanted to see if volume helps with (i) Peri-tamponade (ii) Dynamic obstructions. It helped a little – O2 requirements went from 60% HF to 6L NC. BP okay but still tachy.

Day 2: We pushed 2.5 mg metop x2 with concurrent ECHO. LVOT gradient improved from 70s to ~10! (I did not compare mid-cavitary gradient, apologies). Started on 25 bid of PO metop later that night. HR now 90s Day 3: Official ECHO shows improved but persistent gradients.

Evaluation of tamponade was similar to previous ECHO but E-wave velocity variation now 38% –> elective pericardiocentesis: 550 cc removed. Fluid was transudate We also tapped a small pleural effusion pocket: transudate, cx negative (again goes with hydrostatic pulmonary edema).

Day 3 (contd): inc metop to 50 Q12H to blunt the gradients.

Day 4 – HR in 80s. ECHO shows no DLVOTO and non-significant mid-cavitary gradient. Oxygenation improved but still not normal. Why?! Check the E-velocity post-pericardiocentesis: it has jumped to 120 with E/A > 1.

Some dogmalysis offered by this case – – Fluids (probably) helped the pulmonary edema; CPAP/diuresis may have worsened. – IV metop contraindicated in hypotension? Not in this case – Sometimes you may have to diurese someone who recently had DLVOTO, as discussed above.

This case highlights the cognitive flexibility required to deal with hemodynamic puzzles. One thing I would’ve done different is be more aggressive with metop early on as it made a huge difference with DLVOTO. This was quite a ride. Hope you had fun. Feel free to share!

Much kudos to the treating team, I think this was excellently managed. As Amand says, cognitive flexibility ias absolutely key in assessing hemodynamics, particularly in the grey zones when multiple processes occur and co-exist. Managing this type of case using a recipe-based approach and without POCUS could have let to a poor outcome.

Now the POCUS used in this case is on another level. Very impressive and allowing incredible insight and certainly many potentially clinically useful Doppler analysis tips for LVOTO and LAP assessment.

In the end, I think that there were three pathologies, (a) tamponade physiology, (b) dynamic LVOTO, exacerbated by (c) hypovolemia (diarrhea) I might have approached this differently, had I seen a truly plethoric IVC. In such a case, one can easily see how tamponade physiology would contribute to LVOTO in two ways by creating intracardiac hypovolemia, hence worsening LVOTO both by decreasing LV preload and by the compensatory tachycardia. My first approach would probably have been to drain the pericardial effusion, and reassessing the hemodynamics afterwards, but correcting the intravascular deficit was necessary.

The other important thing this case re-emphasize is that tamponade is not a static diagnosis but a physiological spectrum. For the same given effusion (read intrapericardial pressure – IPP), it is the RA pressure that will determine whether overt tamponade develops. In this patient, it is very likely that a day earlier, there was no frank tamponade, but that after some diarrheal volume loss, the RAP dropped, and now IPP > RAP. It is important to know this because if you have an effusion and a fairly full IVC, one needs to be very careful with anything that can drop the RAP, meaning diuretics and vasodilators, because these can easily turn pre-tamponade into overt shock. And, as this case illustrates so well, you might even end up with LVOTO and pulmonary edema! Which is one of the myriad reasons one should have a basic POCUS exam in every acutely ill patient. These are things a resucitationist needs to know and prepare for.

Jon, great post as always! I do agree with most of it, but would have to caution readers about reading it with the filtered glasses that make people too often take home the message that they want to – usually the path of least resistance (or change). I think your main point and most critical one is that there is no protocol or recipe that should ever be applied to resuscitation, especially single-variable-based resuscitation (eg old school orders like CVP>12 lasix and <12 bolus), and substituting the IVC for CVP won’t help. And from a standpoint of volume-responsiveness, I totally agree, with the understanding that as the IVC gets more plethoric, the percentage of responsive patients will decrease, inevitably, but one cannot predict with certainty whether that one patient will or will not. However, the parallel change is that, as the IVC gets more plethoric, the volume tolerance is likely decreasing as well, so that your benefit to risk ratio is dropping. And of course you can’t recipe that just based on IVC, but should be looking at the site of pathology (eg lung, brain abcess, pancreatitis with ACS, etc…), physical exam, to determine your patient’s volume tolerance. Because we all know that most of that miraculous fluid will end up clogging the interstitium, with consequences ranging from cosmetic to fatal (though usually blamed on the patient being “so sick” in the first place, absolving the clinician from any wrongdoing). So comments like the one previous to mine, stating “give volume and see if the response occurs” are, in my mind, a poor approach. We know from studies that you cannot simply remove the fluid you gave and go back to the start with lasix (glycocalyx damage, etc), and we also know that much of the effect of said fluid administration dissipates in minutes to hours (I’m sure Jon can quote these studies off the top of his head!).

As we have discussed in the past, I think POCUS is much underused as a fluid stop point – most of its use is on the ‘let’s find a cool reason to give.’ I would argue that you should hardly ever give fluid to a full IVC (especially if markers of pathological congestion are present – portal vein pulsatility and all), unless you are dealing with temporarily improving tamponade or tension pneumo, because even if you are volume responsive, you are likely not volume tolerant. This also goes to the point that a single, initial POCUS exam will potentially not have the same impact as a whole POCUS-based management which will use it to reassess congestion status, cardiac function, etc.

Having said all this, the most important part of the SHOC-ED article is, in my mind, their discussion, which is full of all the important reasons why the final conclusion is not `we don’t need to do POCUS in shock,’ which is what I see happening (similarly to the TTM reaction), as they outline the cognitive fallacy of putting on trial a diagnostic tool whilst the therapeutics are not yet clearly established. Those only reading the abstract or conclusion will actually miss the important points of this study which the authors clearly explain.

In particular, the ‘rare’ instances of tamponade or aortic aneurysm or PE in their series would be diluted out by the sepsis, but for those patients, it would matter. As the authors state:

‘one might argue that even a single unanticipated emergency procedure would justify the use of POCUS in critically ill patients.‘

So I got to have a chat with ER doc extraordinaire Korbin Haycock today, reasserting my belief that tissue perfusion is not proportional to blood pressure. I am again including the article discussed, and here is the graph in question:

So I think much of the awesomeness of #FOAMed is sparking discussion and exchange, and the many little steps in clinical management besides the initial prescriptions. So I thought I would highlight and exploit a couple of really interesting reader comments:

So first, Kylie (@kyliebaker888):

Great to listen guys, thanks, and very timely. I had just read Tremblay’s paper after coming across a very pulsatile PV in a relatively well elderly patient with bad TR. Two questions – which PV are more likely pulsatile in the first place….Tremblay mentions RVF/TR and very thin folk. What is your experience?Second Question – what did the GB wall/GB fossa look like after the initial very positive fluid balance? Does everyone blow out their GB wall with fluids, or only some?

It is always important to isolate the patients’ whose physiology may change the clinical signs (in this case PV pulsatility) and make their interpretation different. I agree that massive TR, especially chronic, would likely account for pulsatility. I am not certain about the physiology for the very thin patient, but I have heard the same thing from Andre. So my personal take on a patient with severe TR and a pulsatile PV would be to look at the IVC variation, TR notwithstanding, if it is fixed and plethoric I would diurese – the organs don’t care what the cause of the congestion is.

As for the GB, I have also seen edema, and then try to correlate with cholestatic enzyme changes that would be out of proportion to the hepatocellular enzymes if there is a primary GB process. This is certainly an imperfect science. In a critically ill septic patient, I have a low threshold to drain the GB if in doubt.

Then Korbin gives his two cents, and then some!

Great case, loved it. Thoughtful management, brilliant!

I couldn’t help thinking as I listened, that it is so important to avoid over-resuscitation with fluids in the first place. We all know that the majority of crystalloids given will end up as interstitial edema, so any benefit from the increase in stroke volume is temporary at best (consider carefully what you gain and at what cost). Wet lungs=increased mortality, days on the vent, and ICU stays. Wet kidneys=AKI 2-3 days after initial resuscitation and potential RRT. Congested liver=gut edema and continuation of inflammatory cytokines/sepsis syndrome. Too much fluids–>BNP levels rise, high BNP levels in the presence of LPS=glycocalyx shedding, and more interstitial edema everywhere.

Cannot agree more.

I think there is some decent evidence that an early fluid liberal approach combined with a late fluid restrictive approach can potentially benefit a patient in septic shock, but its clear that an overall positive fluid balance does harm. Perhaps, even the early fluid liberal strategy (in sepsis specifically) should be tempered by a careful consideration of what is really going on.

My take here is that, by using POCUS, there is no need for a “general approach.” POCUS takes essentially no time. In about 5 seconds you can confirm a small IVC that can (initially) take fluid, a medium one (that you need to watch) or a full one (yes, it happens – that gets no fluid). So to me there is no need to have a pre-determined approach…

Sepsis is an entity characterized by venous return being limited by a decrease in mean systemic pressure (MSP) due to an increase in venous capacitance, rather than a decrease in fluids that generates the stressed volume (MSP=fluid filling/venous capacitance). The body compensates with an adrenergic response that maintains (or attempts to maintain) MAP by an increase in a catecholamine driven augmentation in cardiac output/contractility. This adrenergic response likely has more to do with the increase in lactate production observed in sepsis, rather than actual tissue hypo-perfusion and anaerobic metabolism mechanism. Increases in CVP inhibit venous return and congest the kidneys and GI tract (the left atrial pressures are the equivalent problem for the lungs, combined with the fact that pulmonary vascular permeability is increased in sepsis as well). Given this, I think in distributive shock, we should fix the lack of MSP by an earlier vasopressor therapy approach, both to supplement and decrease the crystalloid load to the patient, which is un-natural and contrary to their deranged septicphysiology.

Agree.

Also, could the type of crystalloid given be important? NS gives a considerable sodium load compared to LR, and this likely promotes/sustains fluid retention that is difficult to remove during de-resuscitation. The high chloride levels of NS will promote an increase afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction and thus decrease GFR, making it more difficult to diuresis the patient later on, and contribute to AKI beyond the iatrogenic interstitial kidney edema caused by the crystalloids we gave.

Absolutely. NS is given by medical peeps only by cultural habit. Most do not know the pH (zero SID due to chloride) of a solution they give by the buckets. RL is the best option I have available.

If you are involved in the early phase of resuscitation of a shocked patient, consider the downstream consequences of your fluid strategy that you give your patient that may give you a temporary comfort because they will look better in the short term.

Dr. Maitland and the FEAST study corroborates exactly this.

This is not to say that an aggressive and upfront resuscitation is not critical–it surely is. I’m saying resuscitate smarter, not wetter. Look for stop points for crystalloids–E/e’ ratios, consider PVPI, RV dilation/TAPSE, hepatic vein doppler, IVC dynamics, portal vein pulsatility, intra-renal venous Doppler patterns and renal resistive index. Fix the hemodynamics from an approach of the root of their problem, rather than pushing fluids for every hypotensive patient (whether you are taking care of them early, or late in the time frame of their illness). Fluids do have their place, but be careful and cognizant of their real down side. Look at your patient, think it through, and make the best actions for them.

Ok, now I don’t even get to have a punchline. Thanks Korbin!

So if this interests you, tune in to The Great Fluid Debate at H&R2018, and I look forward to meeting both Kylie and Korbin who will be in attendance and, I’m sure, putting us all on the spot!

And yes, there will be a POCUS workshop on portal and hepatic vein POCUS.

Hi, so as a follow up to our earlier discussion, which can be found here, Rory and I discuss a recent case he had, which I think exemplifies well many of the clinical conundrums that are seen in fluid resuscitation, one being the general resistance of many to diurese patients who are still in shock on vasopressors, instead preferring to (hopefully) wait until shock resolution to de-resuscitate. But sometimes, it is exactly what they need, as some of this congestion may be, in fact, a cause of shock…

I am really enjoying this exchange, and I think it is in the true spirit of #FOAMed to foster these discussions, as we have the opportunity to combine and fine tune our understanding of a topic from several really bright people’s view and experience.

Korbin:

Jon-Emile, excellent points and insight. I should clarify a couple of my comments. To be specific, by “renal vein flow” I am referring to intra-renal venous flow. Apologies for my imprecision! Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, a lot of these renal and portal Doppler patterns are surrogates of CVP. But I don’t think any of us would use CVP in isolation these days to make any decision what-so-ever on whether fluids were indicated in our patient.

Also, to clarify, I am not using intra-renal venous flow or renal resistive index as measures of non-fluid responsiveness. Rather, I use these measures as a stop point for attempting to solve the patient’s hemodynamic dysfunction with crystalloid regardless of whether or not my straight leg test tells me the patient is still fluid responsive.

And that is a key re-iteration to me. It is important to set these stop points and not only look at whether the cardiac output can be maximized. This has been tried. And failed. Let’s remember that sepsis is not inherently a disease of low flow. It isn’t cardiogenic or hypovolemic shock at the core.

My rationale for the strategy of using intra-renal Doppler, E/e’, and Lung US (now, I can include portal vein pulsatility) as a stop point for IVF administration is that I think the patient is best served to avoid iatrogenic edema of the upstream organs, primarily the lungs and the kidneys. These are the two organs (maybe you could put the endothelium in this category as well–glycocalyx being a whole other can of worms!) most easily damaged by the chase for optimizing every bit of fluid responsiveness. We have good evidence that getting wet lungs and swollen, congested kidneys is a bad thing, and we have these tools to hopefully warn us when we are pushing things too far.

Absolutely. And the whole glycocalyx is something to keep in mind, even if only to me mindful to disrupt it as little as possible.

Of course renal resistive index, intra-renal venous flow, portal vein pulsativity, and whatever else you like will have limitations and confounders. As long as you understand what can cause abnormalities with these tools, you can make an educated guess as to what’s going on. If our creatinine is off and our RRI is high, but intra-renal venous flow and portal vein flow is normal, perhaps the RRI is caused by something other than renal congestion, like ATN. If the portal vein is pulsatile, but the Doppler patterns of the hepatic vein, kidney and the heart look ok, maybe something else is wrong with the liver. But, if all our modalities are in agreement and pointing to congestion, we should perhaps believe that it’s congestion and stop the fluids.

That is an awesome approach to integrating RRI. I’ve been toying with it for the last couple of days, and much thanks to Korbin, I think that the limitations of RRI can be overcome by using the rest of our clinical and POCUS data.

It isn’t a hard technique, though in some patients getting a good signal can be tricky.

I think that the kidney, being an encapsulated organ, and the fact that much of our crystalloid ends up as interstitial edema, the kidney will develop sub-optimal flow patterns before CVP would cause congestion. The same is true regarding the lung, except that it’s just related to increased pulmonary permeability due to inflammation. Regardless, the idea is to save organs, and the earlier you can detect the problem, the sonner you can stop battering the more delicate organs with fluid.

As I think we have all mentioned, you really have to look at the whole picture, and put it together to tell the story of what is wrong, so we can logically and thoughtfully treat our patients.

I really appreciate this discussion. Thanks!

Thanks to Andre, Jon and Korbin for making this very educative for all!

When it comes to physiology, there`s no doubt that Jon is the man, so I was really curious about his take on all this, which, no surprise, is definitely worth sharing, just in case everyone doesn`t go read the comments.

Jon:

Wow; there is a lot to unpack here.

My first comment is that intra-renal venous flow [*not renal vein flow], hepatic vein flow, portal vein flow, etc, etc, etc [as well as IVC size and respiratory variation] are all ultrasonographic transductions of the central venous pressure …so I’ll give my boxed disclaimer that volume status and volume responsiveness cannot definitively and reliably obtained from this marker because the CVP is too complicated to make these physiological leaps.

Indeed. It is important to realize that, as Jon states below, that the angle for looking at the PV in this case is to assess congestion, rather than responsiveness or the ever-so-nebulous ‘status.’

Wait for it … volume tolerance and the CVP, is a bit more nuanced, i think. with a high CVP, you really have to ask yourself – **why** is the CVP elevated and go from there. if the CVP is elevated because of tamponade, its very different management from a high CVP from a massive PE or air-trapping versus a high CVP from volume overload.

There seems to be some confusion about *the renal vein* versus *intra-renal vein*. the lida trial is clear that it is intra-renal vein flow. i am not terribly familiar with *the renal vein flow, however, my hunch is that renal vein flow should always be biphasic [just as the jugular venous flow, SVC flow, IVC flow and hepatic vein flow are always biphasic] – that is a normal pattern close to the right atrium. normally the systolic inflow velocity is greater than the diastolic inflow velocity and there is fairly good data correlating reversal of systolic to diastolic venous flow ration to right atrial pressure [in the IVC and SVC].

Definitely the intra-renal vein should be the target here – not always easy in some patients, because the renal vein itself, especially the right (no crossover) really has an IVC pattern and won`t necessarily reflect the effect of intra-renal hypertension.

The pulsatility that evolves in the intra-renal vein as the CVP rises is beyond me, but the authors postulate that it has to do with the compliance of the vein at higher CVP and intra-renal interstitial pressure which makes some sense. But it is important to note that the compliance curves of an intra-renal vein and *the* renal vein are probably quite different.

Secondly, the pulsatility of the PV is a neat idea because of its relative ease of assessment. However, the pulsatility, presumably, is due to the PV encroaching the limits of its compliance curve – the PV, like the CVP – has an inflow and outflow pressure. It is highly likely that a pulsatile PV in a post-operative cardiac patient relates to an angry RV – but is this always true? What about the cirrhotic? What about differential partitioning of fluid into the splanchnic bed versus the lower body? What about differential expression of adreno-receptors between splanchnic arteries [beta and alpha] and splanchnic veins [mostly alpha]. My point is that there could be *other* inflow and outflow differentials that are affecting PV volume, compliance and therefore pulsatility that are not yet recognized. A cirrhotic on bomb dose phenylephrine/vasopressin may have their splanchnic venous volume recruited with blood expelled towards the liver, an engorged PV that is pulsatile – but is that RV failure? Is that a patient who needs to be decongested? I don’t know.

Thirdly, there are complex cardiac contributions to venous flow phase and vein pulsatility such as arrythmia – atrial compliance, etc. As the comment above notes – how might afib contribute to SVC or IVC venous inflow? It’s hard to know, but my hunch would be that afib itself would tend to reverse the normal S wave: D wave supremacy … that is, decrease the normal systolic inflow velocity relative to the diastolic inflow velocity. if the atrium is not emptied fully then its pressure with rise. if atrial pressure rises, when the atrium is pulled downward during ventricular systole, the S wave will be diminished. additionally, the more chronically dilated and poorly compliant the right atrium, the greater its pressure will be with the loss of atrial kick.

Fantastic points. Again, looking at POCUS metrics CANNOT BE DONE IN ISOLATION, from the rest of the POCUS and clinical data.

Lastly, the venous inflow pattern analysis approach to CVP estimation – i think – is better than IVC size and collapse because of how IVC size and collapse can also be affected by IAP, ITP/PEEP, etc. Because ITP affects systolic and diastolic inflow patterns similarly, that confound should be lessened. Nevertheless, as Dr. Denault mentions in the cases above – you have to treat the patient! This means integrating what the data is telling you in the patient in front of you. If in a certain clinical context the test results do not make sense, it’s probably a false positive or false negative test.

I dug up this gem from 30+ years ago. Excellent paper [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3907280 – “Ultrasonic assessment of abdominal venous return. I. Effect of cardiac action and respiration on mean velocity pattern, cross-sectional area and flow in the inferior vena cava and portal vein”].

Ok that’s on my short reading list for the next 48h!

They show the venous inflow waveform for the IVC [presumably very similar to *the renal vein]; Afib *does* cause the S wave to become attenuated – so it would change the normal biphasic form to more of a monophasic form. In theory, giving a calcium channel blocker and slowing the patient down should improve this somewhat. They even have a brief discussion on portal vein pulsatility.

This venous inflow stuff is very interesting and potentially very applicable. @iceman tweeted out wave velocity patterns in the MCA during high ICP – indeed – an increase in ICP renders the flow more pulsatile and then there is loss of diastolic flow. Probably similar physiology for an intra-renal vein as intra-renal capsular pressure rises. A good sign that the kidney is under pressure!

Thank you Jon for some really excellent physiological points and the reminder that, in POCUS just as in clinical medicine, we cannot rely on one assessment, and that measure must be considered in the context of the factors affecting it. Otherwise, we are not truly tailoring our therapy to the patient, but only pretending to.